Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 25, 2013 3:30am-4:00am PST

3:30 am
that we'll provide the 11 feet of the backyard, we'll landscape the backyard. we'll still provide the landscape bare between the - the residential backyard and the castro club backyard and that way it will provide for privacy for the neighbors >> i say if you go it - put the restaurant back 11 feet will leave you enough space for the restaurant. that 11 feet is okay. you don't have toes have a right it. you wouldn't have windows in the back it would be just a residential backyard and
3:31 am
wouldn't effect the residents on the street. i think that could work >> question has been proposed by my client would you be satisfied to a glycohad green roof and we'll still put in a land escaped backyard. >> you won't - if youes have a right and the restaurant is back 11 feet what's in that area? >> anything that might happen there whether it's kitchen or - >> that backyard is below grade it's not useable. >> it's the same level as it is now. we're going back to the
3:32 am
restaurant thing >> i'm sorry if you forget that last idea the green roof is just more expensive and it's not worth the thing to do. i say we landscape the backyard >> then i would move to do that. >> the restaurant is 11 feet there's an 11 foot backyard it's notes evaded but the spiral staircase would be the residential backyard and that would be a landscape to did he
3:33 am
- take care of the backyard. >> i'm not really sure what that does in terms of the noise. i don't know about the noise >> well, you don't have a window in the light well. >> the restaurant would have no windows in the backyard and that's fine. that's fine >> the commissioner could say there's no opening and make that as a condition. >> you couldn't have a window it's below grade. >> there would be nothing that would prevent them in the future that wouldn't be something that the commission would look at again. >> commissioner anthony.
3:34 am
>> i'm probably okay with the motion. i don't want to be so restrictive. i've got an area that is owned by homeowners and it would be nice to get some light into the back of there i think more people are concerned about the activity back there and not the light. i don't want to see restriction. as long as there is no passage in there it's okay to let a little bit of light into the back of the restaurant. >> commissioner moore. >> i feel i need - in addition,
3:35 am
not fact that the restaurant does not have any opening in the back you'll need some vent levitation. i don't know what exactly to solve the issues here >> commissioner. >> i don't know bringing it back seems to effect just the restaurant part. and the upper level gains deck. the larger backyard i guess is what happens. but it seems like a minor you change.
3:36 am
if we were to stick with the windows in the backyard were not operational, would that work >> except we'd have to have cleaning people be able to get back there. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i think what is issue that i sort of think of is there's no looikt in the back but there's restaurants that don't have lights in the back by they're open in the day. i'm for - i just want to make sure we don't have the additional noise in the back
3:37 am
with addition to the restaurant noise there already. >> commissioners you do have a motion in the second that's on the floor. >> commissioner. >> i would say that even if we're requesting the windows to be fixed i will have to have significant vents and equipment to move the air. i don't want to bring in noisy restaurant equipment. i happen to leave very near a
3:38 am
restaurant and you're talking about the backyard being an issue. we should send the owner the applicant back and to listen to what we're saying and make a workable situation. that would mean we would support the application but one with this additional workup. the party it the restaurant project it is extremely important but we're stuck on what is a reasonable deal closed in or whatever. let them take this back and look at this again and bring itself us the answer we're looking for.
3:39 am
i don't see that all answers are here. we're not getting all the sibtd matters >> i would support that as well. >> and nobody has to come back and give us the same issues we want answers. >> is that a motion and yes. >> i'll second it. let's get a date >> two weeks, yes and the public hearing is closed. >> i would support the closings of the public hearing. >> hover if something new is presented to the commission then it will be reopen.
3:40 am
commissioner >> i'm supporting that where the kitchen and other rooms could be moved to the back. it's there to give you light into the restaurant but i don't know what it looks like to the west and east but this is my concern. i'm generally okay with looithd in the country club >> would two weeks be sufficient. >> yes. you have to give me the date. >> that would be february 7th accounting. so is the continuance committee more to the february 7th accounting >> slightly. >> commissioner borden. >> my question is when you come
3:41 am
back on that date talk about the mechanic equipment that i are going to use please have that. >> does the project commission have - i don't know here talking about 11 feet i suggested by keeping the light and is the mechanical equipment a problem. >> is the primary issue the noise? so one of the issues is to keep the plan as is and keep the mechanical except.
3:42 am
and option two is to pull the restaurant back 11 feet and notes have a right leaving the possibility of no natural light maybe having a sky light. to it seems to me that the commissioners primary issue is the looikt in the back >> commissioner moore. >> no, i'm sorry i'm done. >> this reminds me of a case we had 6 years ago. there was a rear patio in the middle of residential area and i think our bilth concerns were
3:43 am
the sound sketches and they were able to make enough changes to mull u muffle is sound. i think it's worked out fine >> commissioners on a motion to continue on february 7th. so moved the commissioners that moved and passed 6 to zero >> what was the other one? >> commissioners that will put i under item 16 for d and d at 740 bay street. requests for discretionary
3:44 am
review. good afternoon commissioners i'm david from department staff. the case - this week is for decision correcty review to construct a two-story horizontal at the rear of the two-story garage located mid block on the north side of bay street in russian hill. decks are proposed. the subject lot measures 25 feet wide by 37.3 feet deep.
3:45 am
two residential buildings on their own lot. the lot closet to the street contains a two-story unit. directly adjacent and west to the side. the character of the subject in the opposite block that faces the two-story buildings in various architect styles. some buildings especially mid block stepping up with the sloepdz architect. and other structures at street frontage. as was stated there were two
3:46 am
discorrecty project but one was withdrawn last week. and robert thorp requested a - mr. thorpe's concerns include the following the projects negative effects on light and air to his building and privacy to his building the projects negative effects on the open block open space and character. and is projects effect on the value of his building. we reviewed the building and neither the project requests demonstrated any negative consequences. the r d t said that because it's
3:47 am
uphill 750 bay street casts shoolz onto the building especially in the afternoon. the r d t would not create loss of privacy. the projects windows and decks faces the subject rear yard and not directly onto the adjacent proposes. the r t d noted that the patrolled size are within the tolerance for the neighbor of the staffs recollection says no
3:48 am
to take the r d r and approve it >> you have 5 minutes. secretary it's one 5 minute period >> and in sports of the d r will have 5 minutes. >> my name is robert thorp i'm the owner of 750 bay street. it's considered a two-story project. i've lived here for 2 seven years. i purchased this properties from
3:49 am
my landlord who has born on the block, owned the property since 1954. from the day i arrived i found the place i would live the rest of my life. i was told that my place is special. and most people on the block have never lived there long. therefore the develop or so and their hired guns have no concept of the issues. more as developers do they care as demonstrated since my filing
3:50 am
in october. but it's not only my home it's a significant income business. i treat my tenants like they're my extended family. since pretty much this property in 2002 i have paid the city of $70,200,000 in property tax. to put a human face to this project i ask for your help in minor changes. let me state that i'm in favor of the 75 percent of the upgrades. most of the project will be positive for the neighborhood it will attract people that will pay property taxes.
3:51 am
however, the staff minus protection us. i've submitted to the projects owners many times and i've let them know about the privacy and noise issues that would be significant depending upon who the new owners are. the develop or so have offered one take it or leave it so far as the roofline. i've been available and willing to discuss changes since my filing in early october and i've had no responses. the develop or so only want to appear to be cooperative at
3:52 am
least on face value. and to den my d r i ask that the commission persevere some of the issues here. in order to maintaining some of the lighting i'm asking for a suicide and - on the second floor addition extending into the garden be moved back a few feet. this would only be asking for a little bit of space be
3:53 am
eliminated. whether or not this property is 31 hundred square feet or less it won't matter to the people in this neighborhood. i'm asking for that the proposed slab design that would allow more light in the units number 1 and two. i'm asking that the privacy concerns be respected in unit 1 and 2. i'm asking that the roof-deck be denied >> thank you. >> and noise consideration. thank you for your consideration >> speakers in support of the d r a requester.
3:54 am
>> my name is it pauli live in unit one. at 750 bay with my companion donna rose. she was working and couldn't be here. fortunately i'm retired and i'll speak. we've lived here 19 years. we had to move out of that place because the landlords son moved in and it took us 11 years to get back to the bay hills. we moved back in april of 2009
3:55 am
and it's been four years we're pretty sure may not residents >> now apartment union one is a small apartment and the living room is an essential part of it. it has by way windows where we live and it has sun light throughout the day. as i said in the mornings i'm in the living room reading any newspapers and donna goes to work and before that he's in the living room drinking coffee. and weekend and holidays we are both in the living room and i guess it's very important to us to have sun light.
3:56 am
sun light in the living room is a big deal to us to have that blocked off and be in the shade is a major effect on our quality of life. so we're in favor of any changes to the project that would minimize that effect. i don't know who came up with the idea that there was be no effect on the sun light in the living room. there will be a substantial effect. and on our privacy the deck looks directly into our dining room. >> thank you next speaker.
3:57 am
>> hi. i'm carol and i've been a resident since 1978. i'm taking care of of my mother and i'll move back in november to live there the rest of my life. whoever came up with the idea - in my living room is my only a light and add another third floor and extend it out to as far as he like to - i had a deck and i love the light and my privacy and i've gotten use to hearing the birds sing.
3:58 am
so definitely this intrudes with my privacy. please realize this is my home. thank you >> thank you good afternoon i'll make this as brief as possible i'm laurie. i'm in unit 3. i'd like to finish off with some of the thoughts he continued with. talking about the denial of the roof-deck if we cooperative that on the discussion on this and then we would be most of the
3:59 am
appreciative. on many which the large homes in pacific heights going on next to 740 base street we feel disadvantage in front of the this planning commission and not to have a greg on board to influence this commission we're asking chair wu to make some minimum issues that would effect our lives and help to preserves some of what is being taken away by those greedy develop or so. 20 years from now you as